Mod 6 - Condition Changes

I oppose the modifications to the pasminco remediation project.
Purchasing our land in Macquarie Hills 2 years ago came with an
understanding that the site was free of contamination and that all
steps necessary would be taken to ensure the health and safety of
residence both now and in the future. Had I been told that pasminco
would not be responsible for the maintenance of the containment cell
so soon after purchasing the land, I may have decided to purchase land
elsewhere.
The surface water issues our property and our neighbours have
experienced in the first 18months living here have only been
temporarily resolved in my opinion. Pasminco is required to have an
ongoing responsibilty to ensure that our properties do not flood or
erode in heavy rain which has been our past experience. Whilst
pasminco was very swift to act on two occasions, if the modifications
are passed, does this mean pasminco will no longer be required to fix
the water problems that will inevitably occur again in the future?

The BEF needs to be funded as promised. The circa $800k per year need not
be acquired from circa 4% on $21.5M in land sale funds. Surely the
PCCS can find adequate funds or facility for the next 2 years of circa
$1-2M to fund the BEF adequately and provide surety to LMCC and DP&E
that it will meet it's obligations under it's approvals.

Attention: Director - Industry Assessments

I would like to formally object to the proposed modification request
(MP 06_0184 MOD 6) made by Pasminco Cockle Creek Smelter Pty Ltd
(Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement). It is my understanding that
an appeal has been lodged against the Minister for Planning regarding
the deemed refusal of this modification. I urge the Court to consider
the impacts PCCS has already imposed on the local community and refuse
the proposed modification.

Reporting Requirements

I do not support any changes to the reporting requirements as set out
in the existing conditions of consent. in addition to pollution
incidents as required under the POEO Act, Condition of Consent 1.22
requires the proponent to report any "material change in conditions at
the site or in its surrounding environment which could result in harm
to the environment". In my view, this condition provides some degree
of protection to the community that any changes on the site that may
impact the structural integrity of the containment cell would also be
reported, regardless of whether these changes resulted in a pollution
incident. Therefore, I feel this condition should be maintained.

According to the EPA objection (dated 13.7.2018), a range of
regulatory action has already been taken again the proponent with
Penalty Notices for pollution of waters, failing to publish monitoring
data and failing to undertake all monitoring. In addition, they are
currently investigating a discharge because of irrigation over the
cell. Hence, I strongly object to any changes that may reduce or limit
future monitoring, particularly when the proponent has displayed
disregard for their existing monitoring and compliance requirements.

Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring

I do not support any changes to the monitoring of surface or
groundwater monitoring as this condition was established to protect
the long-term health of the local community and environment. Any
pollution incidents that affect surface waters have potential to
adversely impact Lake Macquarie, which is located within very close
proximity. In addition, remediated residential land that is located
downslope of the Pasminco site has potential to become re-contaminated
if surface waters are not regularly monitored to detect any potential
pollution incidents. Given the containment cell is located over a
known geological fault line, it is my view that regular monitoring of
groundwater aquifers is vital to the long-term health of the
surrounding environment.

Contaminated Water Management Plan

The management of contaminated waters and the prevention of discharge
from the site is key to the future long-term health of the surrounding
community. Given PCCS has already failed to prevent pollution
incidents and are currently under investigation by the EPA, I do not
believe this condition should be removed or varied.

Imposition of Covenant for Containment Cell

I do not support any changes to condition 8.8 and do not believe the
proponent has provided any justifiable reasons to support the proposed
changes. The long-term management of the containment cell is vital to
the on-going health of the local community and PCCS has already failed
to comply with this their obligations under this condition. Further,
the community is already burdened with a legacy of lead contamination.
This includes the failed LAS, which was the culmination of a series of
unfulfilled promises and omissions that date as far back as the 1995
conditions of consent.

Any changes to the maintenance and management of the containment cell
in perpetuity, risks not only the health of the environment and
residents but also the social fabric of a community already burdened
by legacy lead contamination.

Regards,

Nicole Gerrard